Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838504900106 |
| Published date | 01 February 1985 |
| Date | 01 February 1985 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE
OF
THE
PRIVY
COUNCIL
COMPLICITY-LIABILITY
FOR
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
Chan Wing-Siu and Others v. The Queen
The
Privy Council's decision in
the
recent case of Chan Wing-Siu
and Others v. The Queen [1984] 3 W.L.R. 677, clarifies the nature
of the circumstances in whichparties to an unlawfuljoint enterprise
can be held criminally liable for unintended consequences of acts
done in pursuance of
that
joint enterprise.
The
three appellants were each charged with murder, contrary to
common law,
and
wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm
contrary to section 17(a) of
the
Offences against
the
Person
Ordinance (Laws of Hong Kong, c.212).
The
prosecution case was
that the appellants
had
forced their way into amarried couple's flat
armed with knives in
order
to commit arobbery. While
one
of the
appellants stood guard over the wife, the
other
two appellants
forced the husband into
another
room where he received fatal stab
wounds. As
the
appellants left
the
flat,
the
deceased's wife was
slashed across the head.
The
appellants left three blood-stained
knives behind them in the flat.
The
appellants did not give evidence,
and in relation to all three appellantson both counts the prosecution
alleged that crimes of the type charged must have been contemp-
lated by them as possible occurrences in the course of their joint
venture.
The
trial judge directed the jury that whichever of the
appellants was found to have inflicted the various wounds, each was
guilty on both counts if proved to have
had
in contemplation that a
knife might be used on the occasion by one of his co-adventurers
with the intention of inflicting serious bodily injury.
The
appellants
were each convicted on both charges. On their appeals against
conviction, the Court of Appeal of Hong Kong upheld the trial
judge's direction and dismissed the appeals.
The
appellants
appealed to
the
Judicial Committee submitting that it was not
enough if an appellant foresaw death or grievous bodily
harm
as a
38
To continue reading
Request your trial